The next war will be in Washington

The idea that we're on an irreversible course to attack Iran and launch WW IV seems more and more unreal to me. This report from Wayne Madsensays that the next battle is going to be an internecine one, between the neocons and the Bush family, over who takes the blame for the mess of Iraq.

October 24, 2006 -- There is something afoot, in a very Shakespearean way, in the White House.

Preparing for a post-election massacre of the GOP and the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, two factions are emerging within the White House.

One is the neo-con faction surrounding potential scapegoat Vice President Dick Cheney. This faction includes Cheney's own staffers and his and Rumsfeld's sympathizers in the Pentagon, National Security Council, State Department, and media and think tanks.

The other is the faction coalescing around the other potential scapegoat -- George W. Bush. This is the most interesting faction as it consists of George H. W. Bush and his closest friends -- James Baker III, Lee Hamilton, former CIA Director Robert Gates, Alan Simpson, Sandra Day O'Connor, and other past luminaries of the George H. W. Bush administration.

George W. Bush has had to admit that his presidency has been a failure and now must have his father and his father's friends bail him out. The Iraq Study Group of Baker and Hamilton, which is negotiating with the Iraqi Resistance, Iran, and Syria against the wishes of Cheney's faction, was a step in the direction of bailing out Junior.

This editor was recently approached by someone close to George W. Bush and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow who made it clear that George W. Bush was fighting elements "further to his right." Flabbergasted, I responded that I didn't think many people were further to the right than Bush. But that was before the impending scapegoating issue became clear. "Further to the right" means Cheney, some members of the Christian fundamentalist Right, and their followers.

Politics and power-alliances are never as simple as they seem. Bush Jr. took office as a political naif. The neocons used the occasion of 9-11 to bring him to their side.

Bush Sr. is an old-line WASP establishment type, no special friend of Jews. GWOT has made lots of money for the Carlyle Group, but now that it's likely to become a permanent blot on the Bush family name, the marriage of convenience between the old line establishment and the neocons is breaking up - so is their plan of buying a summer palace in Iran.

And where do 'we the people' stand in this new war?

Right where we've always stood, along with the rest of the world - directly in the line of fire.

21 Comments:

One scenario I've heard is for the Dems to take the fall for most everything left in a flaming heap by the previous misadministration, and with the help of the media echo chamber, the GOP can be resurrected. The powers that do the manipulating will be able to demonstrate that they can throw their support to whomever is the most willing lapdog. A false flag attack on the Dem's watch can be used to claim that a "weak-on-terrorism-defense" by the Dem's has emboldened the 'terror' factions so that people might think that while the GOP is corrupt and inept, they pay the right lip service to the "war on terra". The fact that the Dem's do not seem to be wanting to pursue impeachment and investigations reeks.

Q,if you're being influenced by anything Olmert is saying, remember the Israelis are addicted to threatening. Half of their threat is always bluff.Dont you think that attacking Iran would be a form of suicide for Israel?

lancethruster:" The powers that do the manipulating will be able to demonstrate that they can throw their support to whomever is the most willing lapdog."beautiful, did you write that yourself, may I qwote you?

qrswave:Struggles always happen, I agree the qwestions are in the details, when, how, why, who?

saif katana:Nice qwote, is that Shake-a-spear?

bobw:you too have something to say that is worth reading,that's four for four!"addicted to threatening. Half of their threat is always bluff"Unfortunately for whomever will take them on, the other half is not bluff.

It is rare indeed to enter an arguement and agree with 4 out of 4 comments above. If I disagree with you in the future, please don't take it personally.

Now for my attempt at furthering this debate:

Good people (who come from a place of peace or the desire for peace) can always see the infighting and backstabing of the bad people (those greedy people who ruin everything). Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, bad people will take the old, "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "live to fight another day" ethics ahead of, "do the right thing" everytime. This is the handicap or burden of the good people. We (I want to be good, don't you?) are inconsistent. We fall prey to our temptations, don't we? But they (I honestly believe that 2 or 3% of all humans actively persue "badness") are very very VERY consitent. as they will always choose the above dictums.

Well atheist, since you seem to be channeling Elmer Fudd (or is it Tweety Bird?) it appears you're not really interested in originality (not that your observations aren't exceptionally mundane).

Who *are* these 'good' people who can always see whatever it is you say they see to supposedly support your vague assertions (I'm OK, you're an unknown quantity?).

You confess (either the royal 'we' our you and the mouse in your pocket) to being able to resist anything but temptation [Oscar Wilde] but your numbers are far too optimistic.

Since you're so in need of a grasp of the basics, here's the crash course. Everyone operates from the same motivations; ego and laziness (conservation of energy). Your ego requires for you to *feel* superior but your laziness prevents you from doing anything constructive to provide justification for such feelings.

Therefore, a few non-specific digs (quantity over quality - 4 for 4!!), an anti-climactic grande finale as to how you see things (with the weak assertion that your worldview mirrors reality) and we're all supposed to retreat from the arena tails tucked? Flush out your headgear new guy.

The TOE (theory of everything) my own sentient friends and I have fleshed out is the "80/20 rule".

It works across the board to whatever individual or entity it is applied to. People/groups are 20% one trait (pos or neg) 80% less so. You seem to be 80% a-hole, 20% functioning mouth-breather. The electorate is 20% hardcore a-holes, 80% 'other'. Conversely, it can be viewed as 20% decent concerned informed voters, and again 80% 'other'.

Both 20%'s try to bring 30%+1 over to their camp (a simple majority). It's why Rovian/Hitlerian propaganda techniques are so effective. A-holes are good at appealing to other a-holes (particularly in voting against their own interests). These individuals and/or concentrations of a-holes (say "hi" to your buds for me!) contaminate every sub-group they occupy (think of it as kind of a reverse "Peter Principle" in that the a-holes reward the corrupt and mendacious until it's their time to be thrown under the bus - see Chomsky's "The Fate of an Honest Intellectual") and are able to use a marked lack of ethical compass for their own self-interest regardless of the impact on the 'other'. These conglomerations of (varying degrees of) power (the powers that be) in various sized ponds see power in a rather one-dimensional manner ("winning" is about contrasts where someone else must "lose", whereas true power has the ability to empowers others as well).

Let's apply this to the media. They want to make money, and they want power. Spout the company line and you do better than one who does not (even money-makers will be jettisoned for negatively impacting the agenda). What is the 'agenda' of the powers that be? Look at ownership. Look at rewards and punishments (especially politically). Look at the amount of lies/distortions and omissions to cover the heavy-handed pushing of this agenda (though somewhat grey around the edges, like a true scientific theory, it makes predictions).

Such as; Israel murders their neighbors, it's "defensive". A politician is in somewhat less-than-lockstop with the Israeli agenda, and he or she is an anti-Semite (and the funds dry up or go to their opponents - AIPAC money came heavy in the last weeks from 7 out of state regional chapters to defeat Cynthia McKinney - with a substantial dose of election fraud for good measure - plus no press coverage of same). Defend a people being systematically slaughtered by these eternal "victims", and you become a terrorist enabler (and now eligable to be 'disappeared' at Gitmo). Wipe your ass with the Constitution like the pReznit and not a peep if it helps the tribe. False flag attack with probably more holes in the official version than your Jockey shorts and it's, "Move along now, nothing to see here!" Bang the drum incessantly about the horrors of a 'rogue' nation (though a signer of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty) legally developing nuclear technology but do not mention, do not ask about, do not confront the true rogue nation that has an undeclared nuclear arsenal. Demonize academics who dare to question the power of the tribe but treat shills as revered scholars.

This is but a fraction of the long reality-based list that shows what is happening in plain sight. I know you get disoriented by thoughful questions but I hope you'll indulge me with one for you; Is it hard for you to breath with your head so far up your own ass (or anyone else's you're trying to impress)?

If it's not stuck permanently (or you grow tired of the smell of your own waste matter), here's your assignment after you pull your head out (unless you're one of the 5000 cyber-soldiers bankrolled by the tribe to go forth upon the net to Wow! us all with your brilliance and say 'good things' about whoever we are supposed to have 'good thoughts' about).

Try to think of a way out. You can't get away from the 80/20 rule. It's in our DNA. Cro-Magnons virtually snuffed out the Neanderthal line. Those are our forebears; the most dominating a-holes. But now we're just hairless monkeys with bigger clubs but no real departure from our reptilian brainstem. The veneer of 'civilization' is thin indeed (your esteemed contributions notwithstanding).

= Struggle within a criminal organisation="Struggles always happen, I agree the qwestions are in the details, when, how, why, who?"Struggles -especially amongst criminals- usualy happen when they fight for wealth and power. And a criminal probably wouldn't have a problem feeling bad about backstabbing another criminal as long as they don't get killed themselves.

= doing "good" ="Good people (who come from a place of peace or the desire for peace) can always see the infighting and backstabing of the bad people (those greedy people who ruin everything). Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, bad people will take the old, "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "live to fight another day" ethics ahead of, "do the right thing" everytime. This is the handicap or burden of the good people."

Being a "good" person doesn't depend on where you come from ("a place of peace") or just your intentions ("desire for peace") but your >actions< linked with the intentions driving them.I would replace peace by justice.

Doing "good" is not a handicap but an investment. You need to justify your actions not only to other but also to yourself. And the easiest way to do that is when your actions are truly justified ("good"). Once you pursue "badness" it's easy to end up in a spiral of lies, deception and unjust actions. That burden is far greater than the being "good" burden.

"live to fight another day"is not always "bad", and does make sence. It's usually the only option a resistance has against an invader with a superior force.

"We fall prey to our temptations, don't we? But they (I honestly believe that 2 or 3% of all humans actively persue "badness") are very very VERY consitent. as they will always choose the above dictums."You make it sound as if you believe persueing "badness" consistantly is better than "falling prey to our temptations" once a while.

As usual, Wayne Madsen does his best to divert any possible blame away from the zionists who influenced us into war, designed the war, and are still profiting off of it.

Which group does he categorize Richard Pearle into? No wait, if I want that answer I'll ask WM at his site WMR. Not here. And since WM is a liar, I don't really care what he has to say about Richard Pearle.

Also, come on bobw. Please stop making this site a Wayne Madsen mirror site. People can go to WMR to read what Wayne Madsen wants to lie and deceive us about.

The thing you said further down about WM not revealing his sources almost made me sick. "There's no idea where this info came from, but by god I trust it!"

I think Madsen has a proven track record. Many of the sites that are supporters of justice in international relations still squabble over the "tail wagging the dog" schism. That doesn't negate those elements of value just because it doesn't line up with one's own personal read on the issue. I think part of the proof of Madsen's veracity is that he has not been sued for some of the allegations he's made even with them being anonymous sources.

Post and link whatever seems relevant or of interest. I think the topic is exceedingly timely in that the handicapping of Iran is mostly based on before or after the election, not that it is not coming. Since this and many other informed sites discuss the economics, I think there's serious manipulations going on in the markets. Gold goes up when things look unstable, drops when things supposedly calm down. There have been periods of where the price holds at the high or low longer than it seems it should. This would conveniently allow those who know what's coming to position themselves accordingly. Between the funds being looted from Iraq and Afghanistan ($9b+), the money from the drug trade, stock and commodities manipulation, the unmetered oil from Iraq (like a bottomless wallet), our aid to Israel coming back as AIPAC money to use against honest politicians; it's much like the way casinos are perfect for laundering money.

If war with Iran does not come about in the immediate future, it will be because their is more advantage (and money to be made)short term in keeping the rhetoric heated w/o actually attacking Iran. In the meantime, all this continues to be a diversion as Israelis still murder Palestinians at will and keep trying to goad Lebanon innto further conflict with their incessant flyovers.

And btw, very good points saif katana(and you could have left up that your passage is Quranic).

I really meant it as a compliment.I specifically said that I entered a room where I adgreed with four out of the four above comments.That means that I agreed with your comment. I complimented you on it. I called it beautiful. I asked if I could qwote you on it.

You seem to have taken offense when there was no offense intended. It was a compliment.

Are you angry at me?

I don't understand why you would insult me after I compliment you.

Peace and love to you and your loved ones, brother.May happiness surround you.

atheist You have my sincere apologies if you were not in a sarcastic mode. You have been quite generous in your clarification and the offer of the olive branch so the embarrassment is all mine. I hope you'll forgive me in that this is/was the first time I have seen someone say "did you write that yourself and may I quote you?" and NOT mean it sarcastically. I further misinterpreted your summarizations of the other posts as implying that they were lightweight and generic and that you were mocking them. This seemed to be confirmed by the tone (smarmy?) where you asked forgiveness in advanced for should you choose to disagree at some point in the future but failed to indicate what particular sticking points you were anticipating (I'd still be interested in what those might be).

Chalk it up to someone (me) used to ambiguity as a cover for a dig, and as such went of half-cocked. I guess it's similar to how it's harder for someone to take the compliment "Heckava job, Thruster!" the same way post Katrine. As my presumptions got us off on the wrong foot, allow me to offer my welcome here to you (if this is your first foray here) and say I am a fellow atheist. Xians have a bumper sticker that says they're not perfect, just forgiven.

Feel free to invent the second line for the one I should put on my car:

"Athiests aren't perfect..."

My entries:

1) "well, we just aren't!"2) "though some think they are."3) "unless it's perfectly (fill in blank)"

And finally as a complete divergence, I once was part of a discussion panel (put on by xians) where the topic was "Is there a blueprint for our existence and do we have a purpose?" The religionists went on about god's creation and heaven/hell and salvation. My take was short and sweet. I said our "blueprint" is our DNA and in that regard, we perform our role "perfectly". By that I mean whatever our genetic strengths and weaknesses are, we will manifest them accordingly. If we come down with a horrible disease, or are mangled or maimed, our bodies will respond "perfectly" in that whatever reactions take place are what our organic selves do (which is ultimately to die).

Unfortunately, this throws my 80/20 rule right out the window as I have apparently been the perfect @sshole - 100%. Howzabout we pretend like my previous unpleasantries didn't happen and we start fresh? Hopefully I'll attempt to do a little confirmation of what I think is being said beforehand prior to letting loose with one of my patented rants.

Thanks for clearing the air, atheist. You're a gentleman and a scholar.

I looked back at my original post and I too can see that it could be taken sarcastically.That's why rather than getting all flustered I asked whether you were sure about what you said.Given the opportunity to show that you are a gentleman, you came through.

by the way, atheist, technically, 'turning the other cheek' is for 'xians'.

j/k - obviously, atheists can do it too . . . :)

Even though I think you're both wrong about God, I love and respect you both.

thanks for sharing your thoughts which I find enlightening.

saif - thanks for your comments - very good point about replacing peace with justice, as you can't have one without the other. I agree with lance thruster - you should have left the Quranic attribution up. Apparently, not all atheists mind...:)

bob and brook - I think WM is okay. I understand you have your suspicions, brook. I get suspicious when someone avoids talking about israeli atrocities. But, I don't write people off for it - as long as they don't support israel. I think it's important to distinguish between the two, the latter being indefensible.

I admit I don't frequent WMR all that often. So, I don't mind hearing about what he has to say.

I don't write him off because he doesn't mention Israel enough. I write him off because he claims Arabs brought down the world trade center, that the arabs were being tailed by Israelis who were nice enough to warn us of an approaching arab attack.

Just search on his site for 911 and read any document related to 911 and tell me how this guy is being honest.

"What the DEA did not realize was that the art students were also shadowing the very same Arab cells that would later carry out the 911 attacks."http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Baffles.htm

He also consistently refers to 911 as Terrorist attacks, which perpetuates the lie.

Search for Al Qaeda and read his opinions on that subject.

I just came across this one where he appears to suggest that Al Qaeda carried out 911 and our intel agencies just weren't prepared to stop it:http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/2005_12011210.php

I know he dumps all kinds of interesting information on his site but I just don't see how anyone can trust this guy.

Re: Madsen and 9/11. He linked to an article about a police report on a vacated warehouse owned by an Israeli firm that had explosives traces so it's not as if it refuses info that leads to the Z-team (Zionist operatives). I have no solid personal info as to who's zoomin' who so I try to read it all and triangulate as best I can. I like Kurt Nimmo [Another Day in the Empire] a lot (and it's how I got here initially after I opened Xymphora) and he denies that just about any of the so-called Arab terror groups/individuals are what they seem and OBL is dead. Though I would like to know for certain on many details, I'm willing to recognize that some ambiguity is unavoidable.

The better ones warn of the bogus sites, not so much by pointing them out specifically but by maintaining a healthy skepticism. I once attended a lecture where a lawyer for the Cristic Institute talked about them sueing the govt for info on Iran-Contra. He said their investigations were about 90% correct, but the media focused on the 10% they were off on to discredit them. Of course there are sources out there purposely peddling disinformation out there, but some might just have less than complete or accurate info. That's on of the reasons the movie "Nine Queens" effected me so because the layers of subterfuge means one would almost be justified in not trusting anyone and that leads to its own set of problems. This site here, even if it has erred in areas (not that I'm saying it has), seems to take the right approach in methodology. That's about as important an attribute as you can have. Like the scientific method, it's self-correcting (when new data is available). There are so many others out there with a rigid agenda that their attitude is essentially, "don't try to confuse me with the facts."

Hello, i am glad to read the whole content of this blog and am very excited and happy to say that the webmaster has done a very good job here to put all the information content and information at one place. Ibcbet Online

Great blog! I really love how it is easy on my eyes and the information are well written. I am wondering how I might be notified whenever a new post has been made. I have subscribed to your rss feed which really should do the trick! Have a nice day! La Liga SpanyolBerita ArsenalLiga Inggris